ERIC ED128649: Comprehensive Needs Assessment: Gila River Career Center.

DOCOHEHT RESOME

ED 128 649

CE 008 077

AUTHOR
TITLE

INSTITUTION
SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE

GRANT

NOTE

Gila River Career

Vicino^ F. L. ; DeGracie, J. S.
Comprehensive Needs Assessment:
Cente"^ ,

Gila River Career Center^ Sacaton^ Ariz.

Arizona Occupational Research Coordinating Unit/

Phoenix.; Pinal County Community Coll. District^

Florence^ Ariz.

Apr 76

76-RMG-1302

41p.

EDRS. PRICE
DESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFITIRS

MF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage.

American Indians; Community Surveys; Curriculum
Evaluation; *Educa-':ional Needs; *Needs Assessment;
Program Evaluation ; * School Surveys ; *Stud<int Needs;
Vocational Education; *Vocational Training Centers
Arizona; Gila River Career Center

ABSTRACT

An indepth needs assessment was conducted to identify
and prioritize institutional goals specified in terms of the
vocational needs of the clientele that the training center is
committed to serve. Following a task workshop to develop a list of
institutional program areas of concern, a survey instrument was
designed to determine the extent and importance of each of these 45
areas. Survey results were based cn 142 responses: 87 from students,
28 from staff, and 27 from the Indian community. The three respondent
groups were consistent in their agreement cn relative priorities and
severities of the various areas of concern. Major needs related to
staff sensitivity, to student problems, communication systems, the
training time period, training in work attitudes, job placement
followup, and present and future manpower requirements. It was
recommended that task forces be established to examine these concerns
and prepare alternative solutions. Appended are the workshop starter
list, survey instrument, and table of total survey data.
(Author/RG)

***************** :?c******* ********** t*****************

* Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished *

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort *

* to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *

* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the., quality *

* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available *

* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) . EDRS is not ^ *

* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions *

* supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. *
***********************«*****************************************^

EKLC

CO

rvi

« — I

CD

fBoJC v^2i • )1Ua^, CUlfotxa. iS'iOi • 602. 8S9 • OJtift

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
GILA RIVER CAREER CENTER

Richard Annenta, Dean

Prepared by

F.L. Vicino
J.S. DeGracie

ERIC

2

Gila River Career Center

p. 0. Box 337

SACATON. ARIZONA 85247

562^3340

562-3349

836-2950

963-8090

TO WHOM IT mt CONCERN:

TKia doctanent is a result of the many efforts of the ajdmiaistratloa^ faculty
and staff of the Gila River Career Center. Ii^ttt has been obtained from
each of these groupa and from the comonmity and students; and subsequently
processed under the e:^ertise of the consultants^

The central purpose of the entire project has. been to identify the very
needs of the Career Center. Those needs have been determined and Mx^
contained herein.

Furthermore 9 the "needs" Identified are not thoae proposed by any administrator
or advanced by any aelect group serving solely -its own interest. Rathort
the needs are the verified data of everyone involved with the enterpriae of
the Center*

This document expresses the needs and supplies the evidence necessary to
Judge the credibility of such needs. With that evidence as a guide and a
t:ool^ effective decision msking con be better guaranteed and inprovetsent
more systematically secured for the quality of programs and services the
Center provides.

Ricl:ard R. Armonta
Dean

April 15, 1976

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would 15 ke to thank the Steering Conunittee
of the Gila River Career Center and Cominunity for their guid-
ance, support, and patience with the direction and administra-
tion of this needs assessment program. In particular we appre
ciated the time and effort the committee extended in our work-
shop experience. Members of that committee ware:

' . Margaret Bogan Ron Trusley

Ralph Norton Murray Snow

Joe Mavis George L. Wilhelm

Frank Baca Frank H. Buchella.

Alvin Granada Al Joseph

Rod Dixon Charles Huston

Georgette Chase Vi Johnson

Fred Noll Brenda Harris

Robley Fausett Dee Dee Slater

Guy Acuff j.E. Karner

Dana Norrie Rita Soto

Martha Quinn

Thanks also to pr. Beverly Wheeler of the Research Coor-
dinating Unit of the Arizona State Department of Education for
her very constructive support of the program at times when we
needed it. A particular expression of graititude is given to
Mr. Richard Armenta without whose able administration of a
7)>jimber of critical tasks would have made the needs assessment
program exceedingly difficult and considerably less productive.

4

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE
GILA RIVER CAREER CENTER

Executive Smnmary

Purpos e

To conduct an in-depth needs assessment which will identify
and prioritize institutional goals specified in teri..s of the
vocational needs of the clientele that the Gila River Career
Center is committed to serve. These needs will be identified
by the needs assessment model with input from the students^
stiff/ and community of the Gila River Career Center*
Approach

An analysis of institutional areas of concern was con-
ducted. In order to accomplish the analysis, a comprehensive
needs assessment model was developed and utilized to expose
particularly severe areas of concern.

. The following major steps were employed:

1. A task workshop was conducted to develop a list of
institutional program areas of concern.

2. The areas of concern were then prioritized for program
priority (VALUE) .

3. A survey instrument was designed to solicit information
in regard to the extent and importance of each of the
areas of concern and this instrument was administered
to the following involved sub-publics:

a. Students

b. Gila River Career Center Staff

c. Community Representatives

4. A model was developed and utilized which incorporated
the VALUES, EXTENT/ and IMPORTANCE of the generated areas

EKLC

of concern. The model, di'ter statistical computations^
had as its outcomes the severity of the problem areas.

5, The returned survey responses were scored and ranked
for inclusion in the model.

6, The model was employed to generate the ranks of the
areas of concern in terms of severity; the results and
recommendations, summarized in the following section,
evolved.

Results .ajnd Recommendations

1. The sub-publics appear to agree quite consistently
with the relative priorities and severities of the
various areas of concern «

2. The combined sub-publics agree that we need to:

a. Administration

Examine the staff sensitivity to student problems;
the school communication system; the school's com-
munication with the agencies; the need for Indian
comraunity interest and job placement follow-up.

b. Curriculum

Examine the adequacy of the training time period;
training in work attitudes; high school/GED diploma
and present and future manpower requirements.
3. That task forces be established as the next ste'^.

Their purpose will be to define the extent of the present
situation relative to the need expressed and prepare
alternative solutions. This task force should be
representative of the various sub-publics that have
participated and contributed to this needs assessment ,

The task force, in order of priorities- and logistical
abilities, examine the extent to which, if any, that:

a. The training period be changed to reflect program
needs rather than logistic constraints. That the
training include time and effort for the assessment
of student problems, and the assistance in the
resolving of these student-centered problems.

b. The school's basic communication system reflect
the communication needs of the students and staff.

c. Increased dialogue be initiated between, the Center
staff/administration and the agencies at the formal
and informal level.

d. Increased communication to hhe Indian community be
initiated by the Center administration.

e. Training realistically include the subject of work
attitudes (i.e«, absenteeism, job preparation/ job
in>.erviews, dress codes) in addition to skill
fittainment .

f • Job-placement foliow-up procedures be improved anc
made more extensive.

g. Formal procedures be established for assistance in
the area of high school/GED recognition.

h. Course work reflect an updated look^ at present and
future manpower requirements.

An example of a task force process to solution is outlined
in the body of the report.

iv.

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE
GILA RIVER CAREER CENTER

Contents

Page

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 1

METHODS AND PROCEDURES 3

General 3

Model Development 3

Operational Steps .... 4

Instrument Development and Administration .... 7

Data Analysis and Siimmarization - . 7

Severity of Problem .......... 8

RESULTS 9

Response Sample 9

Sub-publics Apparently Agree '9

What Are They Saying? 10

What Are The Students Saying? 13

What Is The Staff Saying? . 14

What Is The Coramunity Saying? 15

CONCLUSIONS 16

RECOMMENDATIONS • . . 16

APPENDICES

Appendix I — Workshop Starter List
Appendix II — Survey Instrument
Appendix III — Total Data

8

V.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

Under the best of conditions it is difficult to train
clients in a way that will fully meet the expectations of all
the groups involved in their training and those who will re-
ceive their services. However f this was the ptirpose of the
Gila River Career Center when they approved the implementation
of an in-*depth needs assessment of the Center instituted goals.
This »?;3sessment was to include representatives from all the
locally responsible agencies.

In an article entitled^ "If You Must Consort, Make It
Productive," authors D. A. Lambert and J. J. Giiroy indicate
that we must involve all participating 'institutions in the
training process. However, there are some critical steps which
must occur before the consortium of agencies can be productive.
The authors further state, "common outcomes must be agreed
upon, and while members of the consortium may play differenti-
ated roles in reaching these outcomes, all roles are necessarily
seen as mutually supportive."

The ef fectiveneas of educational programs can be measured
if it is clear to the resjjonsible institution exactly what goals
it seeks to accomplish. The Gila River Career Center is a
vocational skill training institution operated by the Pinal County
Community College District. The Center •s goal 'of providing skill
training to adequately fulfill student- trainee needs caimot be
met if periodic assessment is not made of community demands,
expectations, and job market conditions. By definition, the
goal of providing salable-relevant skill training rests on an

O 1 9

ERIC

assessment of actual (job market) and perceived .needs of the
conmiunity elements involved. In this manner decision making
will be based on data and can form a foundation for goal identi-
fication, objectives definition, and eventual program accounta-
bility*

10

1

METHODS AMD PROCEDURES

Gen:;ral

The design and format of this needs assessment follows
the general sequence of procedures established by iaa in
previous large-scale comprehensive needs assessment programs.
In general, the steps used are as follows:

1. Model selection and modification.

2. Development of a starter list of concerns.
a» Initial list of areas of concern.

b. List of involved populations to be tapped for
the task of priority assessment.

3. Workshop including cross-section of steering committee
members who would augment, consolidate, and prioritize
lint of needs.

4. Development of needs assessment instrument based on
list of concerns*

5. Administration to target populations.

6. Analysis and interpretation of data in final report.
: .ojc-l Development

A needs assessment model was designed to accomplish the
major structured and design considerations in the present pro-
gram. The model is pictured in Figure 1. The model portrays
vomo of th2 major steps designed to determine the elements of the
Gila River Career Center institutional needs utilizing the value
or program priority associated with various areas of concern,
the extent of the problems in these same areas and the perceived

11

3

O

ERIC — —

importance of the areas. In this manner, need areas are deter-
mined by measuring generated values, perceived frequencies of
occurrence and perceived importance concerning a set of candi-
date concerns. Concerns which rank high in VALUE, EXTENT
and IMPORTANCE can then be used to form the basic and immediate
problem areas to be confronted in the Gila River Career Center
training program.

VALUE + EXTENT + IMPORTANCE = PROBLEM SEVERITY

Too often, needs assessment methods do not reflect the
perceptions of the very sub-publics involved in the program.
To a great extent such programs solely mirror the perceptions
of a few and needs represent a limited perspective. It is
hoped that the present model increases the probability of
broad acceptance, utility, and effectiveness by including input
from the perception of all involved sub-publics as basic data
for a significant part of the training programs.
Operational Steps

To carry out this plan, iaa was charged by the Career
Center, through a grant from the Arizona State Department of
Education, Vocational Education through the Research Coordinat-
ing Unit, to initiate the needs assessment. In cooperation
with the staff at the GRCC, areas of concern, interest, and
problems related to a needs assessment were identified.

Utilizing this data combined with nationwide information
on problems relating to teacher education, a starter list was
developed containing examples of institutional concerns (Ap-
pendix I)- This list was given to the steering committee.

12

Q 4

ERIC

steering comniittee participants included members from the follow-
ing organizations/responsibilities :

1. Pinal County Community College District

2. Gila River Career Center (students and staff)

3. Florence High School

4. Gila River Indian Community

5. American Smelting and Refining

6. BIA

7. . DES - Casa Grande

8. Hecla Mining

9. Continental Oil Company
10. Tribal PHN

These participants in the December 1975 needs assessment
workshop were asked to use the following procedures:

1. Committees were formed that had representatives from
each group described above.

2. Examples of areas and sample specific needs within
areas were presented to each group so that the scope
and abstraction level of the lists were fairly uniform.

3. Each committee generated a list of institutional con-
cerns assoicated with the Career Center.

4. The lists constructed were then analyzed and redundan-
cies were eliminated and closely related skills were
combined.

5. The consolidated lists were then sent to the participants
and they were asked to rank the top 20 from a total list
of 40 areas of concern.

Instrument Development and Administration

The data derived from the workshop were placed in a sample
instrument format. This was forwarded to the dean of the
Career Center/ Mr. Richard Armenta^ who made appropriate modi-
fications. Clarification of language was completed, redundancies
were further reduced. The final instrii • :it v^as designed incor-
porating 45 areas of concern (see Appendix III) . The instrument
was designed so that the respondent: wr*ald express the "extent"
to which the problem occurs and thfc ^importance** associated with
that problem area. The instrument was then printed and sent
out to a large number of representatives from the aforementioned
sub-publics .

Data Analysis and Summarization
VALUE

As previously stated, the areas of concern were identi-
fied during the steering conmiittee meetings. An instrument was
then designed to solicit input concerning the prioritization
of these areas of cone. rn. The steering committee members were
asked to select the top twenty areas of concern of the forty-five
areas and prioritize the twenty they selected. Using the steer-
ing committee's prioritization, ranks for the individual areas
of concern were determined. These ranks were then used as
measures of VALUE for each of the areas of concern.
EXTENT and IMPORTANCE

An instrument was designed to solicit input from a sample
of the selected sub-pxiblics . The information solicited from
each of the respondents was the EXTEl^^T and IMPORTANCE of each
of the areas of concern. The respondents indicated on a five-
point scale the extent to which the problem (area of concern)

7

ERiC 15

occurs presently and again on a five--point scale, the importance
of the problem. Mean responses were then determined for each
area of concern on both dimensions, BX^ENT and IMPORTANCE.
These means were then ranked. The one rank was then used as
the measure of extent and the other independent rank was used
as the measure of importance for each of the areas of concern.
Severity of Problem

Using the model previously defixyed the severity of each
problem or the severity of each area of concern was determined.
As stated in the model development, ^BCh major component VALUE,
EXTENT and IMPORTANCE was given equal Weights. Measures of each
of these components, i.e., the ranks v^re then added to deter-
mine a total score under the model. These total scores were
then ranked to determine the measure of the outcome of the
model. Severity of Problem. This process was used with the
input from each of the sub-publics. That is. Severity of Problem
was determined for the student, community, ai. ' teacher sub-
publics. Correlations were then run 3:)^tween the measures of
problem severity determined by each of the sub-publics.

The final step in the analysis was the combining of these
measures of problem severity over sub^publics . This was done
by adding the measures for each area concern over the three
sub-publics. This score was then ranKed to determine overall
Severity of Problem.

16

8

RESULTS

Response Sample

As previously stated, the generated list of areas of
concern was sent to selected sub-publics for their response •

Table 1 shovs the number of questionnaires completed by
sub-publics.

Table 1
Response Population

Sub-public

Received
Responses

Students 87

Staff — instructors ,

counselors, administrators 28

Community 27

Total 142

Sub*-publics Apparently Agree

The sub-groups from various and diverse perspectives and
orientations seem to generally agree quite well as to where the
major concerns of the Gila River Career Center are evident.
Correlations (Spearman) of the responses by each of the sub-
groups to the 45 items were determined, and the list of the
intercorrelations analyzed (Table 2) .

17

Table 2

Table of Intercorrelations
Problem Severity

Group

Student

Staff

Community

student

1

.00

.61

.77

Staff

.61

1.00

.53

Community

.77

.53

1.00

was found

4iat

a great

deal of

similarity of

existed in the problem prioritizations given by staff, students,
and community representatives. In fact, the average correlation
between all groups was •64. A correlation of ^35 is significant
at and beyond the .05 level and .43 is significant at cind beyond
the .01 level of significance. It is sufficient to state that
these results show that the overall ranking of the individual
concerns received agreement among the various sub-publics and that
concordance appears to have been reached among these sub-publics
with respect to the overall prioritization of significant areas;
of concern within the Gila River Career Center.

Now that we know that the sub-publics generally agree, the
question becomes/ "What are THEY saying?"
Wba t iire They Saying?

The phrase "What are they saying?" is often rhetorically
expressed ♦ The "they" part of the phrase is generally a nebu-
lous and a multi-meaning "they". We are fortunate that the
"they" in the present case can be identified and the sub-publics
nee<-te i^^>ade known.

18

10

When the model calculations are made, that is, summing
the ranks of Value, Extent and Importance to arrive at Problem
Severity, the following top ten (10) areas of concern are most
severe for the combined sub-publics (Table 3) .

Table 3 "

Rank Item No> Areas of Concern

^ 13 Examine the extent to which teachers

are sensitive to and interested in
student problems,

2 2 Determine if the six months training

period is appropriate or if a longer
training period is appropriate or if
a longer training period is necessary.

3 3 Examine the adequacy of the communi-

cations system within the school.

4 16 Determine the extent to which local

industry absenteeism policies need to
be shared with students.

5 7 Examine the feasibility of and neces-

sity for students to complete a GED or
high school diploma.

^ 23 Examine the adequacy of the communication

between the Center and agencies.

1 Determine if there is a lack of interest

in the Career Center on the part of the
Indian Community.

^ 15 Assess the manpower requirement, present

and future, of the area.

9 20 Examine the extent of job-placement

follow-up.

10 9 Examine the classes in the area of

job preparation, i.e., job interviews,
absenteeism, dress codes, work attitudes.

19

11

It is important to note at this point that the total response
represents all sub-publics equally. Although only 27 conununity
representatives responded versus 87 students, the model uses the
rank score for each of the problem areas for each of the groups.
In this manner each group contributes equally to the final ranking
of the problem area.

If we are allowed to categorize and paraphrase the stated
concerns of the total group we find that of the top ten overall
concerns five are basically in the areas of administration/
staff problems, and the remaining five are in the area of cur-
riculum.

ADMINISTRATION

Staff intere^^t in student problems,

School conuToanication systems •

Center and agency communications.

Community interest in Center.

Job placement follow-up.

CURRICULUM

Training period time.

Industry absenteeism .

GED policies/high school diploma

needs •

Present and future manpower require-
ments assessment .

Classes in job preparation, i.e.^

interviews , absenteeism, work
attitudes .

12
20

The combined sub-publics are asking for more sensitivity
on the part of the ac3ministration/staf f to student problems,
conununication within the system, between the Center and agencies
and the Center and the Indian community •

In addition they want the training period time interval to
be examined, the possible need for some high school recognition
and especially the need to examine the feasibility of introduc-
ing or improving the training in the areas of job attitudes^ i.e.,
dress codes, absenteeism. Along with this manpower requirements
should be reassessed.

In the next sections we will break down the "they" to
examine even further the concerns and needs exhibited by each
of the sub-publics.
What Are The Students Saying?

The following table (Table 4) shows the top five problem
areas as indicated by the students.

Table 4
Student Responses
Rank Item No> Areas of Concern

1 2 Determine if there is a lack of

interest in the Career Center on
the ^>art of the Indian community.

2 13 Examine the extent to which teachers

are sensitive to and interested in
student problems.

3 20 Examine the extent of job-placement

follov;-up .

4 3 Examine th6 adequacy of the coramuni--

cations system within the school.

5 15 Determine the extent to which local

industry absenteeism policies need
to be shared with students.

21

13

The students mirror quite dramatically the needs previously
stated by the total group.

They are particularly concerned about the length of time
given to training periods / sensitivity to their problems and
job-placement follow-up-
What Is The Staff Saying?

■'.■i.'t

It is interesting to note that the staff also place the
length of the training period as a number one concern (Table 5).
They' want an examination of the adequacy of Center and agencies
communication. Quite surprisingly they also are critical of their
success in the area of sensitivity to student problems. The
staff may be exhibiting a concern that they are not meeting this
need. In addition they rank a possible interest in the need
for high school recognition/GED fairly high.

Table 5
Staff Responses
Rank Item No. Areas of Concern

1 2 Determine if the six months train-

ing period is appropriate or if a
longer training period is necessary.

2 23 Examine the adequacy of the communi-

cation between the Center and agencies <

3 13 Examine the extent to which teachers

are sensitive to and interested in
student problems .

4 3 Examine the adequacy of the communi- .

cations system within the school.

5 7 Examine the feasibility of and neces-

sity for students to complete a GED or
high school diploma.

14

ERIC

What Is The Community: Saying?

The community stated top five problem areas are presented
in Table 6.

„,Table 6

Community Responses

Areas of Concern

Rank
1

2

4
5

Item No,
15

16

14

23
7

13

Assess the manpower requirement/
present and future, of the area.

Determine the extent to which
local industry absenteeism policies
need to be shared with students.

Examine the extent to which the
Center programs are sensitive to the
special cultural needs of the Indian.

Examine the adequacy of the communi-
cation betv/een the Center and agencies.

Examine the feasibility of. and
necessity for students to complete
a GED or high school diploma.

Examine the extent to which teachers
are sensitive to and interested in
student problems.

Again strong concensus with the total group is shown. Of
these top five, four are shown in the top ten of the total group.
The one added concern (item 14) shows up as ranked 3 by the com-*
munity, does however show up as number 11 overall and in addi-
tion appears as ranked 8 with the students (Appendix III) .
This item (14) expresses the concern of the community that the
Center personnel need to be made aware of Indian-related problems
and their causes.

The remaining problems in the top five are those that have
shown up rather consistently in the other sub-groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The sub-publics appear to agree quite consistently with
the relative priorities and severities of the various areas
of concern.

The combined sub-publics agree that we need to:

a. Administration

Examine the staff sensitivity to student problems;
the school communication system; the school's communi-
cation with the agencies; the need for Indian community
interest and job-placement follow-up.

b. Curriculum

Examine the adequacy of the training time period;^
training in work attitudes; high school/GED diploma
and present and future manpower requirements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That task forces be established as the next step. Their
purpose will be to define the extent of the present situ-
ation relative to the need expressed and prepare alterna-
tive solutions. This task force should be representative
of the various sub-publics that have participated and contri
buted to this needs assessment, and be given authority to
reduce th^ "red tape" often encountered in implementation.

16

An example of a possible task force strategy for prr;^os-
ing alternative solutions follows the list of recommenda-
tions •

The task force, in order of priorities and logistical
abilities, examine to extent to which, if any that:

a. Training period be changed to reflect program needs
rather than logistic constraints. That the training
include time and effort for the assessment of student
problems, and the assistance in tlie resolving of these
student-centered problems.

b. The school's basic communication system reflect the
communication needs of the students and staff.

c. Increased dialogue be initiated between the Center
staff/administration and the agencies at the formal
and informal level .

d. Increased communication to the Indian community be
initiated by the Center administration. '

e. That training realistically include the subject of
work attitudes (i.e., absenteeism, job preparation,
job interviews, dress codes) in addition to skill
attainment.

f. Job-placement follow-up procedures be improved and made
more extensive.

g. Formal procedures be established for assistance in
the area of high school/GED recognition.

h. Course work reflect an updated look at present and
future manpower requirements.

3. The following represents an example which incorporates
stated needs, and an examination of what is being done
now, discussions of what is wanted and a list cf possible
alternative solutions such a task force could propose.

EXAMPLE

NEED

Training should realistically include
the subject of work attitudes (i.e.,
absenteeism, job preparation, job
interviews, dress codes) in addition
to skill attainment.

WHAT ARE WE
DOING NOW?

1.

2.

Catch as catch can, when eoctremes
are exhibited.

One half-hour discussion during
counseling.

WHAT DO WE
WANT?

Actual instruction to begin early in
training, to include observation,
tutorial work, small group work and
monitoring with feedback during train-
ing period.

SOLUTION
STRATEGY

1. Design a program/course based

on perceived needs which incorpor-
ate sequenced tasks.

2G

18

Set up the program including
speakers and field trips to job
sites.

Set up cluster observations in

simulated situations^.

Set up group and individual

tutorial sessions as needs are

expressed.

Presentation of total lessons
with critique by peers and in-
structor.

Teaching experience to incorpora
time for dialogues with success-
ful student placements.

APPENDIX I
Workshop Starter List

28

o

ERIC

to:

Examine the extent of individual student/instructor
class interaction.

Examine the extent to which teachers are sensitive to
student needs.

Determine whether present counselor office hours are
consistent with need.

Examine the need for inservicing teachers on the use
of AV materials and equipment.

Determine whether teachers have sufficient background
•information on each student to successfully administer
to the studexits' needs.

Determine whether teachers need assistance in preparing'
their daily lesson plans.

Examine the need for increased interaction be*tween
teachers and students out of class-

Re-examine the present day relevancy of the Center
programs .

Examine the adequacy of the Career Center safety
measures-

Examine the adequacy of the Career Center equipment.

Determine the extent to which teachers should be re-
leased to- interact with industry representatives con-
cerning current market trends .

Examine the need for increased communication between
teacher and counselor.

Examine the need for increased communication between
teachers and placement officers.

Examine the need for increased interaction between the
teachers and the Dean of Instruction ♦

Determine the need for more meetings between the admin-
istration and the clerical staff.

Examine the extent to which time at the Center is spent
irrelevant activities.

29

Determine the extent to which, if any, that materials
and supplies are wasted.

Examine the general state of repair of the facility.

Determine the extent to which, if any, that increased
custodial staff is needed.

Examine the extent to which counselors should have
private offices for client intet-action*

30

APPENDIX II
Survey Instrument

31

o

ERIC

GILA RIVER CAREER CENTER
Needs Assessment Survey
Form A

DIRECTIONS

This questionnaire incorporates a generalized lisf of
possible areas of concern or needs within the Gila River
^?^o,^L 1?^^" programs. These areas have been generated

compilation of responses from students,
;S wf?? S administrators, counselors, placement officers
as well as business and community.

In the appropriate box under EXTENT please indicate (to
, your knowledge) the EXTENT to-TnTTcIT problems in each of
rS?, ^5®^° occurred. That is how often you have per-

ceived problems in each of the listed areas of concern.

Swrp^^^^i^f ""f ^f""' appropriate box under IMPOR-
^IICE, please indicate the IMPORTANCE of the probliii

?Sf°?SJnpSLi^ °^ concern. iSat Ts,

the IMPORTANCE of the problem to the success of the Gila

?^rL??!ff ?rJ®f: ^ problem may occur frequently, however,
you may feel that the occurrence is not very IMPORTANT to
the success of the Gila River Career Center. On the other
TSSnPT^fSS f infrequently, but have extreme

IMPORTANCE to the success of the Gila River Career Center.

O M
0 X

w d H-
o 5 D

0 o
0 Pi rt
M rt
• H* (D
O

Cfl Qi
Cfl

rt O
(D

• rt ft
H- CD

►0 Pi ft

(D ft H CD

h CD rt

O O 3 g

Cfl hh

P) (0
h

O O

(D
O
(D

Cfl ti
Cfl

P) H)

3

_ ft
Cfl Cfl

ft P)

P) ^ a

D O
I

H O

1:5 (D

pi

H- ft

P) (D

3 H

O 0

0 3

1 ft

rt^

• h

ft

0 O
M» CD
ft
H- CD

^§

CD H«
H 3

ca

rt H-
Hi

H-

D ft
D*

rt (0

(D (D

0 O
Hi P)

rt

2(
W

n
o

P)
o

o
o

§

o

M

tS ^ < ^

h (D O

D (D h C

ft I ^< h

H Cfl

»Q O

fO H O ^

(D c to

rt I H ^

H Cfl

ft CO o

3 3 n H

Cfl

W o
k; Cfl

H
H

o as
o to H

to ^

o
cn

ERIC

H ft H
ft 3 H H Cfl ^

I

rt H
I

H

ft a

P» 13 H

D O
ft H
I

Cfl to

o

O H- O U>
I

^ tf H
Pl 3 H- Cfl ^

D >5 rt
O O ft o ^
to H H Hi

I to

H
H
H

H

O

n

> ti ^
ft rt 3 w
^ PJ t3

> 3 O
H ft H

CP

O
rt

ft ft- w

pi CD
CD _

w n H

ft 3 CD
O ft
^ CD ft

H ' CD
Pi Pi
CD CD

S P ^
O f-* ft

H W CD
• ^ ft
ft ft

tr o
ft tr

ft H
H' o

pi H ft w

H- CD JJ- X
Ml CD 0)

0

no

ft

H-

. 13
CD

cn

CD 0^
D ft
ft

ft

Oi tr

PJ CD

^< ft
o o

O D as
or ft

CD
O H

o

I

O

Pi

Pi p.

H H
CD H

cn

cn Pi

CD CD

pi<

CD

^< o

ft 3
tr CD

CD D

ft

CD

pi o o
m o CD

S D ft

Pi O CD

D CD

pi H

cn D

H-
O D

<

CD H-
Pi

13
CD

Pi CD

Pi cn
cr

O Pi

CD

13

13 hh
pi O

H 3

O PJ
H ft

H- O

P) H

cn cr

CD H

cn 2
cn
o

13
Pi
H-
PJ
13

cn
pj

13
Pi

ft n o

O pi CD

H ft

trCD CD

CD CD Q

H B

Pi H-

o D

P) CD CD
CD ft ft

CD tr

H CD

O

»U CD

rJ:CD X

tTH ft

CD cn CD

O 13

O 13 ft
O 13

13 CD ft

ft M O

ft i 13

trn3 CD tr

CD o
H Pi

CD
Pi O

o o
o o

cn

cn

cn CD 3

ft H H

O D

H CD

CD
ft

o

j-n CD

H- ft
CD CD

CD O ^
H
CD

cn cn

rr

CD
13
rt

Pi o rt
D o X

pi 3 Q}

13
CD

O C
O D
C H-

cn Pi ft

CD ft ST
H H» CD
O O

D pi
• Pi

tr CD

CD

ft C

C Pi

CD O

CD

13

o

rt hh
CD

Pi rt
o

tr CD

CD
H

Pi < O W
O Pi O X
rt (t C pi

CD D

cn H-
O CD D
Hi H CD
Ml O
H- M rt

o cn tr

CD CD

cn cn
tr CD

Hi o X
O C rt
H H CD

pi D

O rt
H tr
H- Pi rt

CD < O
13 O
rt

H- M
13 H-
rt I
CD
M
I

O

o o

CD Q

CD C H-

M 3 D

H- CD
Pi O

D pi rt

a rt tr

CD

3 Pi
Pi
tr CD

Pi

CD

D _
O CD ^Q
H- rt C
CD < Pi

cn CD o
• CD

O

rt Ml

(D rt
tr
o

2S
W
W

o

CD M CD O

D CD M C

rt I ^< M

M cn

U3

c

CD
rt

O
^ o

M O
CD C
I M

cn

to

rt cn O

H- O o ^

3 3 O cj

CD CD C ^

cn I

W

W O

pi O

M O ^

CD C tt^

H M

^< cn

O 25

O CD ^

O < Ln

C CD ^

M M

cn

H rt

rt 3 H M

Pi ^ ^< CD

DO 3

rt M CD

I I

cn — .

H

X

I

rt 3
pi 'a H ^
D o cn to
rt M
I

O

O H- O W
I

O

8

erJc

34

rt H
Pi »

O O
CD M
I

tr< H
H- cn ^
rt »t5fc

rt O '

CD

rt rt 3 cn

^ pi 13

> D O

H rt M

I

cn

O
rt

BxamdLne the extent to which
teachers are sensitive to and
interested in student probleas.

Determne the extent to which
teachers ahould be released to
interact with industry repre-
sentatives concerning current

Examine the adequacy of the
inservicing of teachers in
the use of audio-visual na-
terials and eguipmeut. - j

Examine the extent to which
time at the Center is spent
in irrelevant activities.

Examine the classes in the
area of job preparation, i.e.,
job interviews, absenteeism,
dress codes, work attitudes.

Examine .the-^asibility of
and necessity for setting up
career days with indilstrial
representatives on campus.

Examine the feasibility of and
necessity for students to com-
plete a GED or high school-
diploma .

Examine the extent to which
instructors are kept up to
date in their vocational
disciplines.

A NEED TO:

I. AREAS OF CONCERN

(1)
Occurs

Very

Fre-
quently

(2)
Occurs

Fre-
quently

H
H

(3)
Occurs
Some-
times

. EXTEl

(4)
Occurs
Rarely

(5)
Never
Occurs

(1)
Is Ex-
treme-
ly

tant

(2)
Is
Impor-
tant

III.

o

0 H- 0 U)
13 £J
1

IMPORTANCE

(4)
Is of
Little
Impor-
tance

35

(5)
Is Not
Impor-
tant
At All

•

Examine the extent to which
Indian problems of self-
identity arc addressed by the
Center.

Examine the feasibility of
further training on work--
related relationship after
graduation and or the job.

Examine the extent of job-
placement follow-up.

Examine the extent of problems
concerning placement in union
jobs .

Examine the adequacy of the
present system of informing
students about help that can
be made available.

Examine the extent to which
local employers are av/are of
.new employee problems.

Determine the extent to which
local industry absenteeism
policies need to be shared
wit:h students.

Assess the manpower require-
ment, present and future, of
the area.

Examine the extent to which
the Center programs are sensi-
tive to the special cultural
needs of the Indian.

A NEED TO:

I. AREAS OF CONCERN

-

(1)
Occurs

Very

Fre-
quently

(2)
Occurs

Fre-
quently

II. EXTENT

•

(3)
Occurs
Some-
times

(4)
Occurs
Rarely

(5)
Never
Occurs

(1) 1
Is Ex- 1
treme-

Impor-
tant

III. IMPORTANCE

(2)
Is
Impor-

(3)
No
Opin-

(4)
Is of
Little
Impor-
tance

3G

(5)
Is Not
Impor-
tant

TV 4- TV T T

At All

Determine if the nximber of
meetings between the admin-
istration and the clerical
staff is adequate.

Examine the adequacy of commtmi-
cation between teachers and the
Dean of instruction.

Examine the adequacy of. the
Career Center equipment.

Examine the adequacy of the
Career Center safety measures.

Determine whether teachers'
daily lesson plans are ade-
quate to insure the delivery
of the objectives of the
class.

Determine the extent to which,
if any, increased custodial
staff is' needed.

Examine the validity, reli-
ability and use of the present
grading system.

Examine the extent of indi-
vidual student/instructor
class interaction.

Determine whether teachers
have sufficient background
information on each student
to successfully administer
to the students' problems.

A NEED TO:

I. AREAS OF CONCERN ||

»Tl<J o

H (C H fl) O H

i to

H
H

(2)
Occurs

Fre-
quently

(3)
Occurs
Some-
times

EXTE^

(4)
Occurs
Rarely

h3

(5)
Never
Occurs

(1)
Is Ex-
treme-
ly
Impor-
tant

(2)
Is
Impor-
tant

H
H
H

•

(3)
No
Opin-
ion

IMPORU

(4)
Is of
Little
Impor-
tance

?ANCE

IC

3?

(5)
Is Not
Impor-
tant
At All

ERIC

38

0^ H- K
S3 13 X
Oi ft K
(D 3
« h H
ft 3
COO
Pi ft
(D H- ft
13 o
^3 (D

ft
CO

o

C rt
rt

(D
O (D
Hi :3

O rt
H (D

CO O

tr CD

(D X

ft

CO D* (D
• (D

h

CO

CO M
O X

tr o>
2 B

(D

CO

(D (D

:3

(D Pi
(D

O C

H- O
O

• O

ft
(D

Pi^ a

(D h (D
:3 O ft

ft tr (D

CO M

(D '

(D g

* CO

H
O

M ^3

n) yQ
Pi (D
• rt"
rt

(D

Pi h

(D

CO :3

rt»<

c

rt tr D
D* M (D

(D

rt

ui. CO
O B

(D :3

CO rt (D
H-rt
rt H- H-

(D :3 M>
02 vQ

rt

rt

h (D

h

H- (D
(D

CD H
CO (D

rt ncJ
O ti
O
I

(D X

O

M> rt
rt (D

(D u:)

(D
M> 3
(D

O h
H-

rf CO

rf
• Ui

rt
(D

O

Hi

^ i a

p4 H- H-

o m

M H> (D
H-

(D D»

i

O

CO

0* r^

CO

rt 3
(D S
Pi rt
• (D
H
H-
PJ

CO

u:) o

c ^ < o

(D H (D O ^

3 (D H C

H- I ^< H ^

M CO

^Q O

(D H
3 (D
H- I

a ^

CO

H- to O

H- O O --^

3 3 o oj

(D (D ^
CO I

H

CO

o
o

H O
(D C
M H ^

O Z

O (D -N

O < Ui

C3 (D

H H
0)

H H- H

H- 3 M H 01 ^

:3 O 3 »

H- H (D X

I i I

H

rt g

13 o
rt H
I

0} N>

o

O H- O CaJ
3 3

H" H H
3 H- 01
3 ^ H-
O 0 H- O
(D H H H)
I (D

> H H
H" H" 3 01

B» W tn

> 3 O 25--
H H" H O
H I H-

H

O
O

o

n
w

H
H

w

H
H
H

H

O

APPENDIX III
Total Data

ALL GROUPS
(Ranking on Problem Severity)

Item

Student

Staff

Community

Total

Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

7
1
4

17
14

10.5

6
27
15
35
19
26
2
8
9
5

23.5
10.5
32
3
20
28

12.5
12.5

18

7
1
4
17

12.5
15
5
27

10.5
35

22.5
20
3
28
21
9
42
30
45

22.5
43

39.5
2

10.5

8

9

11.5
7.5
18

26.5
19.5
5.5

28

10

31

24.5

24.5
5.5
3

1

2
17
14
34

7.5
15

11.5
4

30
22

23

13.5

15.5

52

53

45

16.5
82

35.5
101
66

70.5
10.5

39
31
16

82.5
54.5

111
33
79
79

18.5

53
48

7
2
3
14

15.5

12
5

28
10
34
22
25

1
11

8

4
29
17

41.5
9

26.5
26.5
6

15.5

13

ERIC

40

Item Student Staff

26 16 18

27 22 12.5

28 23.5 44

29 30 19

30 29 14

31 21 16

32 . 31 29

33 34 37

34 45 36

35 25 41

36 37.5 26

37 44 39.5

38 33 24

' 39 39 31.5

40 42 25

41 43 31.5

42 41 34

43 37.5 33

44 40 6

45 36 38

Community Total Rank

33

67

23

23

57.5

18

29

96.5

32

21

70

24

15

58

19

26.5

63.5

20

37

97

33

38

109

38.5

45

126

45

41

107

37

42

105.5

36

40

123.5

44

36

93

31

39

109.5

40

44

111

41.5

43

117.5

43

13

88

30

32

102.5

35

19.5

65.5

21

35

109

38.5

41

o

ERIC